Monday
May262014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill UKIP triumph
May 26, 2014 Climate: Parliament UKIP The news that UKIP have topped the polls for the European Parliament is clearly of great moment, and it's worth considering for a moment whether the party's energy and climate change policies have played any part in the victory. It's possible that the word is getting out about renewables and shale gas and that some voters are attracted to a party that is not caught up in the destructive green zeitgeist. But the much smaller advances made by the party in the local elections suggest that the effect is small.
There's still a long way to go.
Reader Comments (84)
What a pleasure it is to watch the reactions of the LibLabCons and the BBC. They are so isolated from the real world that some of them seem to be genuinely shocked by what is going on. Although, I suspect many of them know exactly what is happening and will now wriggle like snakes to twist the debate. Too late you smug, liberal, self-styled so called elite, your time has come.
How dare the British public get the answer wrong. Some of the comments on the BBC from the hard left are very amusing and reveal what we have always known about these nasty controlling people.
Carbon Capture and Storage and 1984
White House goes Green – and into the Red
I suspect the election result is dominated by concerns over immigration. Here I understand the concerns of the public but would also point out that with UK demographics (not enough young people) we have a choice between tolerating immigration or agreeing to work until we die since the pension Ponzi scheme needs a broad base of young workers.
At some stage the need for drastic reform of the EU Commission needs to be taken on board. They could begin by asking how a handful of technocrats can have the wisdom to determine Europe's energy needs decades into the future.
My brother has just skyped me from Cambridge. A lifelong Tory voter, he voted UKIP and rang me for a gloat. For the past 5 years or so, until retirement, he worked on building sites as a snagger. Wages for him were not keeping up with inflation. That hasn't been missed by Labour voters either.
BBC comment in mitigation of the anti-EU voting result:
"But EU supporters will be pleased that election turnout was slightly higher."
Heh?
Dodgy ground here, Bishop. My doubts on AGW exaggeration would never in any way ally me to UKIP. As other posters have said, immigration was the big topic. However, since you have chosen to "out" yourself politically means that I can make a political point on your blog for the first time. The UKIP Scottish MEP who was parachuted into Scotland from London and won, has great significance for Alec Salmond, since it shows how great the counter-urbanised colonization of Scotland by non-Scots will have on the forthcoming vote in September. Keep to climate please.
I suspect the election result was dominated by everyone getting fed up of politicians, and the way every party seems to consist of almost identical party-line clones who don't listen, who determinedly pursue their own almost identical policies and priorities irrespective of what the electorate want or what they promised to do before being elected, and peculate at the trough of public funding as if there was an endless supply to which they are entitled. They're fed up of political correctness making any opinion they don't like socially unacceptable. They're fed up of being regulated 'for their own good'.
The immigrant thing is only *directly* an issue in certain geographically-limted communities where the influx has been so great as to change the culture and character of the neighbourhood, so people feel like they're living in a foreign country. More broadly, the issue is the widespread perception that youth unemployment is largely due to having to compete with immigrants who are willing to work harder for lower wages. In other words, they're actually complaining about the economy and unemployment, and immigration is just part of the background to that. The reason UKIP make a big deal of it is that this economic theory is one of those that has become unspeakable under the politically correct regime, and it gives a political voice to all those who feel that way. (Personally I think they're wrong on the economics, but I'd defend to the death their right to say it, and for their view to be democratically represented.)
I don't know for sure, but I suspect climate change is not a priority for most people. Most people don't care, one way or the other. The expenses and green tariffs and so on are often seen as annoying and wasteful, but hardly show up against all the other million-and-one annoying and wasteful things they do. UKIP I think pick up the climate sceptic vote on the same basis as several of their other policies - to give a voice to the voiceless. But they don't seem to mention it much in their election literature, so I'm guessing it doesn't poll that well.
I think it's primarily a protest vote. People are angry at the way the mainstream parties and politicians keep breaking their promises, and lying about everything. Expensive Green politics is a part of that, but only a small part.
Reading the comments on the BBC just makes me sad; is there any hope for this country if so many can be so blind?
What should also be noted is that the anti-EU vote appears to be Europe-wide (a point conveniently overlooked by many) – the French Nationalist Party scoring 70% of the votes! I suppose we should start calling them racist xenophobes, now, should we? (Or is that being racist and xenophobic? – oh, the twists in these lies are so hard to comprehend!) Certainly, the French have shown that they are not so entrenched in their parties as the British are.
It's hard to tell from here in NZ, but everyone seems to think UKIP are anti-immigration, when in fact all they want (according to their own words, not their opponents') is to take skilled immigrants (the ones who can pay for your retirement!) rather than, essentially, refugees.
In other words, the same sort of immigration policy that Australia or NZ have.
Am I wrong?
The BBC always portray Farage as smiling and drinking / smoking. It means 'Do not take this man seriously'. That's semiotics for dummies. The wonderful irony is that EU elections are completely irrelevant. The Greens took 20% in 1990.
UKIP infiltrated by MI5 - Norman Tebbit (2001`).
Nigel Farage, a UKIP spokesman, said he could not discount Lord Tebbit's remarks. He said: "I have mused for a long time on the peculiar events in the UKIP and the attempts to destroy UKIP. "I have mused over whether it was the far left, the far right, the Conservatives, but I just don't know."
http://news.sky.com/story/35324/tebbits-mi5-infiltration-claims
MI5 owns these clowns and will sabotage them before the general election, like they did with the BNP.
It's hard to tell from here in NZ, but everyone seems to think UKIP are anti-immigration, when in fact all they want (according to their own words, not their opponents') is to take skilled immigrants (the ones who can pay for your retirement!) rather than, essentially, refugees.
In other words, the same sort of immigration policy that Australia or NZ have.
Am I wrong?
May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered Bruce Hoult
Spot on Bruce, being against uncontrolled immigration is not racist, being against all immigration is but the other 3 parties will not speak its name and call anyone who does a racist.
Trefor, the Bishop is keeping to climate; UKIP are the only major party that has policies against the AGWista juggernaut, thus it makes sense that they should be the party to be supported by anti-AGWists. (Yeah… I know… your dad voted xxx, and your granddad voted xxx, so you will always vote xxx… With the sort of mentality you are displaying, you probably will only wash yourself in the tin bath in front of the fire, ’cos that’s what your dad and granddad did, and what’s good enough for them is good enough for you. /facepalm)
I wish UKIP well but EU and council voting is often a protest vote. What all the parties should take away from this is that the public are fed up with an endless spiral of rules and regulations that make sensisble living impossible. I doubt that many of those who reset the EU realise how many rules are EU rules with added UK cr@p. Our civil servants and politicians are never satisfied to just meet the rules, they always want to go further to prove our superiority. Our judges invariably put the worst interpretation on the laws passed down to them and there's a war against politicians to prove that the judges still make the rules. Sod the public.
Did UKIPs policy on CAGW influence the vote? Only insomuch the public know that a lot of grief stems from Europe and green taxes are part of it. I don't think there is enough awareness yet how much our green policies are costing us and how little they achieve for them to feature highly. I do think that the UKIP vote is a protest against Cameron and since he favoured leaning pro EU and pro green, it would be a big improvement to see him re-educated.
I think a lot of UKIP support in the South West is the result of the blatant LidLabCon support for industrialisation of the countryside with wind turbines and solar farms.
Perhaps UKIP should start pointing out that there WILL be an in/out referendum that cannot be avoided by any government, nor can its results be ignored, and we do not have to wait until 2017 – it is the general election of 2015!
Okay, I see the flaw in this – if they do not make any inroads into Wastemonster, then the incumbent will say, “The people have spoken [sic]; no referendum is needed,” and I have little doubt that is up the sleeve of both parties (and the singular "sleeve" is intentional – there may be two parties, but they wear the same coat).
The "signal" in the Euro elections is to call the referendum we've long been promised. Even if that results in a mandate to stay in Europe, at least we've had our say. The appeal of UKIP is essentially the explicit demand for a return to the democratic process. How the establishment parties respond to this message will likely shape the result of the general election next year.
Beyond that, I don't think there's much more that we can directly infer from the EU voting results, except that the political establishment has lost any connection to real people, living in the real world. It's up to the pollsters to get granular and meticulous, and really find out what's caused regular voters to stamp their feet.
Meanwhile, the UKIP MEPs would do well to ensure that their EU expenses, which they are not obliged to publish, ARE published in minutest detail. We are looking for politicians we can trust, and we will be watching.
"Meanwhile, the UKIP MEPs would do well to ensure that their EU expenses, which they are not obliged to publish, ARE published in minutest detail. We are looking for politicians we can trust, and we will be watching." Simon Hopkinson.
Yes, and not abuse the scheme either, just because the rules are so lax/generous. They should also attend all the things they're supposed to. Just because they don't believe we should be in the EU, doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do things from within it.
@Bruce Hoult May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Your'e not wrong...its the strange bunch on these sites that pick up on broadcasted/published comments and deliver the part they want.
UKIP are not about immigration only...thats the big City MSM and followers that push that line. And Farage said often that we need quality of workers as the Australian/NZ system. Its as simple as that. S. Arabia does very similar.
UKIP wants out of the EU and that should by default end/reduce major problems:
Climate Change gravy train
Immigration of the wrong kind
Energy Generation - end wind turbines
Benefit System - work!
Human Rights, the right ones.
Taxes - the right ones.
Once the EU is dropped UKIP might get onto to undoing the damage of Labour/Cons/Libs. 5 years won't be enough.
Alas it was just a general protest about the over-reach of the EU. In times of crisis everyone blames the foreigners. The influx of the East-Europeans was the straw that broke the camels back. This is the same protest vote around Europe - far right or far left. Of course the non-vote tells us that 65% of us either couldn't give a toss about the EU or have not found a party that represents our interests.
Yesterday's UKIP success is a timely reminder about how things work in a democracy. What we are seeing today is that the modestly self-styled "urban elite", with their heads so firmly stuck up their own fundaments, are struggling to cope with the fact that their views on how a modern society should operate are not universally accepted.
They just don't get it.
They're convinced they are right and the rest of the country is wrong. In their eyes, views which do not coincide with their own belong in the realms of 'dinosaurs', 'nut cases' and 'fruitcakes.'
Social norms are not absolutes, but change over time, as even a brief perusal of history will demonstrate. But in a democracy, social change can only happen with the broad consent of the majority - not by diktat.
I see yesterday's result as a wake-up call.
"UKIP wants out of the EU and that should by default end/reduce major problems:"
Don't think so. I've heard that some of the EU insiders laugh at the UKIP stance, because a lot of the worst of the regulations we complain about are actually drafted by the UK contingent. They're actually the policies of UK politicians and bureaucrats that they push through the EU so they can say: "The EU made us do it!"
Dropping out of the EU won't change the policies - but it will at least remove one of the excuses. Then we'll have to see.
It depends on the location. Here in Suffolk we are frequently asked about wind turbines and solar farms, and this also regularly comes up on the website http://www.ukipsouthsuffolk.org/category/environment/ . UKIP have a policy of opposing them, but also of supporting proposals for renewables which might actually work. Roger Helmer MEP is the UKIP spokeman and he has done much to promte this well received policy position.
Of course, in metropolitan land, not despoiling the countryside and a rational approach to energy production, are both rarely visited concepts.
Radical rodent, what makes you think I want to bathe in a tin bath ? My point was that the climate debate hardly featured at all in the election campaign - so how was this a victory for political scepticism?
Now we've all had our fun and told the major parties to get a grip or worse might befall them hopefully sanity will be restored in time for next year's General Election.
Anyone who wants to see the UK out of the EU needs to vote Conservative. There is no point in blathering on (see comments in the DT virtually any day for the evidence) about 'parliaments not being able to bind their successors', Cameron being a con man who has said he will support staying in regardless or any other specious drivel. The only party with any reasonable hope of forming a government after June next year and which has said anything about giving the electorate a referendum on Europe is the Tory party — even if you have to hold your nose while you mark you ballot paper.
Pretty much the same goes for anyone who wants to see EU reform which (pace Booker and North) is on the agenda because there is mounting evidence across Europe that if there is no reform there will, sooner or later, be a bloodbath — and I do mean that literally. I don't think people fully understand how close to conflict we came, and haven't fully retreated from yet, over Ukraine. Perhaps the likes of Barroso and Cameron with their inane dribblings about a Europe "from the Atlantic to the Urals" might realise that the "it was the 'Urals' bit wot dunnit". Russia was never going to take that sort of encroachment on her sphere of influence without reacting simply because in her own legitimate interests she couldn't afford to.
And the peoples of the rest of Europe are falling out of love with the excessive and needless centralisation, not to mention the endemic corruption, which characterises the European project.
If you don't care all that much whether the UK is in the EU or not then pick whichever party you fancy and live with the result. Vote UKIP by all means; just don't think it's going to change anything because it isn't.
Can one of you briefly explain the mechanics of this/these elections? Is UKIP on the ballot on the continent? For the locals, or only ex-pats? I am having a difficult time understanding what is being discussed, I suspect because you all know the details and I don't.
Check out Monckton's take on it over at WUWT, its a hoot:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/uks-only-climate-skeptic-party-crushingly-wins-the-eu-election/
I voted UKIP. Must be some mistake - after all I live and work in Cambridge, have a first and higher degree in science from Cambridge University and work in academia.
My wife, friends and colleagues are appalled.
So much for stereotypes.
Is UKIP on the ballot on the continent? For the locals, or only ex-pats?
UKIP was only on the UK ballot, SNP was only on the Scottish regions ballot. Sounds odd I know but as SNP is a scottish party it sticks to Scotland. UK is UK wide and so was on all the ballots but in the past when money was tight they stuck to the regions where they had most support. There are no EU parties but once all the MEP's get to Brussels they form groups with like minded parties.
BoFA, thanks much.
I gather that the elections on the continent seemed to express possibly new-found parallel interests to those of the UKIP voters and that this is what is inspiring the positive reaction among the commenters here and at WUWT.
Tefor: the argument goes as the media wants it. Few in the MSM want the ugly head of “alternative” energy raised, as it would open a whole new can of worms. No, they concentrated on UKIP’s racism and xenophobia, in the forlorn hope that “the people” would be shocked and so not vote for them; seems like that idea backfired, too.
However, UKIP remains the only party who have declared their antipathy to bird-choppers and land-poisoners, and the general AGW meme, and want this country to strive for energy independence by investigating the new sources revealed to us.
What we all have to do is ditch our personal historical preferences, and back those who do have the same general mentality that we do. Let’s face it, Labour and Conservative are not the parties they once were, as both more or less share the same outlooks and ideals – namely, to treat the population as imbeciles who have to be trained to do what the politicians want. That this means ever-increasing taxation and regulation means that it is very likely that only those pleasures that are properly approved should be available for your enjoyment, if you can afford them; the smokers already know how that works, but the sights have now moved to other targets – drink and sugar being just two.
I suspect that UKIP's energy policies were only a minor factor in its success. Although people don't want scenic areas to be blighted by wind turbines I don't think they realise yet quite how much damage green policies will do to industry and employment.
If people are asked, "would you like clean, non-polluting, cheap, renewable energy?" the natural answer is "yes!" I would like it too if it was a real prospect. I think some forms of renewable energy are worth exploring, e.g. tidal lagoons. Insulation of buildings and improvements in the efficient use of energy are also desirable. However our energy policy should focus on making sure that energy is available when needed in the forms that are needed and at a reasonable price. In addition we could have a few experimental power stations, e.g. tidal lagoons again, even if their electricity is more expensive, just for the purposes of research.
Any politicians, whether from UKIP or any other path, who want a sane energy policy should hammer home the facts that much of the Green agenda is based simply on wishful thinking and, if fully implemented, will turn Britain into a Third World country.
Roy
This is the very simple reason this country is on the edge of the Third World (apart from Manchester City)
Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade
The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme.
The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London, with it even being used as a hedge against falling equities or rising inflation. "It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around €300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil," says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader.
The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
jferguson,
Despite the desperate attempts of the EU to pretend that this is a EU-wide election, in reality it is a set of national elections, and each country votes according to local concerns. The UK is further subdivided into regions; see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results
Within the UK Scotland and Wales have distinctive local parties, and Northern Ireland is entirely different from the rest, electing entirely different parties using an entirely different electoral system. Beyond that, breaking the country up into regions has the effect of favouring larger parties over small ones. The Greens and especially the Liberal Democrats were affected by this: on a purely national poll the Greens would have got 6 MEPs (instead of 3), and the LibDems would have got 5 (instead of 1). The SNP (Scotland) and Plaid Cymru (Wales) also benefited from regional counting: they would have won 1 and 0 seats respectively in a national poll, but got 2 and 1.
Trefor, you may not be aware that this blog started out as a (libertarian) political one. This history remains in the lower half of the blogroll.
I think you are right though, that the climate issue did not play much of a role in the campaign or the results. It did not get a mention in the Ukip leaflet we got.
Trefor wants the Bish to stick to climate and avoid politics; but since CAGW is 1% science and 99% politics, that is surely impossible.
I'm a lifelong Labour supporter who became disillusioned with New Labour many years ago and for lots of reasons, one in particular being Miliband's egregious Climate Change Act. Back in 2010 I was intending not to vote at all but when I looked at UKIP's manifesto and realised they were the only ones proposing a sane energy policy, I switched to them and have stayed ever since (indeed a member these days).
I actually think energy supply could be a game-changer at the next election. If the Ukraine crisis continues and we have a cold winter, there is a real chance of blackouts this winter and if UKIP is able to place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of all the other parties, then it could make a significant difference. At the moment everyone is naturally focussing on the EU and immigration but if the lights start going out, that will quickly change the focus.
Hello, esmiff
I have a few hundred tulip bulbs for sale, if you're interested. Just stick them in the ground and watch your investment grow.They'll be worth a fortune by the end of the decade.
http://www.thebubblebubble.com/tulip-mania/
@ Ex-expat Colin at 12:40 PM
"Energy Generation - end wind turbines" Not quite.
UKIP policy is much more sensible, it simply wants to end subsidies to wind turbines (& solar).
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5308a93901925b5b09000002/attachments/original/1397750311/localmanifesto2014.pdf?1397750311
Simon H
Euro MPs get fixed allowances not expenses, something Farage has had to explain numerous times to ignorant,mainly BBC, interviewers who are desperately trying to dig the the dirt on the guy.
Jonathan Jones. Thank you. Very helpful.
Farage and UKIP won the biggest share of the vote and the most MEPs because they stuck to a simple, understandable and believeable message. Namely that the UK has lost control of its borders (to the EU) and this is the cause of endless problems (for jobs, housing, schools, hospitals and so on).
Farage could have talked about the impact of EU regulations on the City (and has done so fluently at a Bloomberg conference) but there are no votes in that. He could have talked about energy costs (in Helmer he has an extremely well-informed advisor and fellow MEP), but that would have (in my view) opened up a distraction to his main message.
His success is the best result in UK politics for a very long time but he, his party and the rest of us face a very long haul in undoing the inestimable damage already caused by the current UK and EU political establishment; they will not go quietly.
esmiff said:
The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme.
No doubt many politicians and bankers will think that is excellent news, but it fills me with foreboding. Can an economy based on trading in CO2 emissions really be sustainable, to use a term beloved of the greens? Suppose the "pause" in global warming continues for another 13 years, or that temperatures begin to decline during that time? That would mean that the world would have gone for 3 decades without global warming. What sort of foundation would that be for a carbon trading industry?
I fear that the whole thing will make the South Sea Bubble like an insignificant flutter on the stock markets.
@ Joe PublicMay 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM "Energy Generation - end wind turbines" Not quite.
"UKIP policy is much more sensible, it simply wants to end subsidies to wind turbines (& solar)"
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5308a93901925b5b09000002/attachments/original/1397750311/localmanifesto2014.pdf?1397750311
pdf states:
End wasteful EU and UK subsidies to ‘renewable energy scams’,
such as wind turbines and solar farms
I think thats the no more wind turbines case, by default the subsidy will go and they cannot continue without money from elsewhere.
Followed up by this Farage vid 4 years back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E2iUNzFtV4s
They will be gone! Solar maybe not so much?
It's interesting that the country that has done best out of the EU and the undervalued Euro (due to Greece, Spain, Portugal, et al having financial issues) voted for the status quo. I'm referring to Germany for those outside Europe.
Roger Helmer, UKIP's MEP and challenger for the high profile Newark by-election in a fortnight, has a long history as a climate sceptic and rational energy policy campaigner. His speeches at the EU on that subject litter Youtube. He was even chairing a big name sceptic conference in 2009 in the very bowels of the Europarl building itself, in Brussels, as Climategate broke. Anthony Watts and Delingpole were among the speakers who on returning from that conference found themselves swept into huge media profiles.
Helmer has the UKIP energy brief. He is bound to use the anti-wind weapon in his campaigning, which will be receiving intense media interest now.
Nigel has been an *extremely* outspoken climate (model) skeptic, so his views are well known by voters, so claiming the election had little to do with climate alarm is silly now that most of the public realizes its just a scam, so can't be further riled up about it like they can with more mainstream issues. Skeptics have simply succeeded only too well, reaching out to the public via the Net and a few highly informed talking heads who listened to our facts. In the US there's more inertia though, despite the successful thwarting of climate treaties, as conservatism here is seen as being overly Puritanical and anti-science Biblical, and a massive left wing is so utterly invested in playing off of that impression that they now refuse to budge on climate alarm too.
This is what skepticism looks like, UKIP style:
http://youtu.be/EFpzaQPKC54
There is something that we are all missing; while climate was not in the media during the campaigning, it could still be a reason why people chose to vote as they did. Just because it wasn’t reported does not mean to say it did not happen.
UKIP's energy policy wasn't the reason I voted for them in the EU election, it was to simply the out of EU issue.
Roger Helmer MEP in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeBEW_PnaHE
Roy did you see the date on that carbon trading article?
Euan Mearns
"At some stage the need for drastic reform of the EU Commission needs to be taken on board..."
Rather like saying,
'At some stage the need for drastic reform of the IPCC.. needs to be taken on board.'
Brussels is unreformable like the IPCC. It must go. Get Europe out of the EU. When the UK quits, others will follow. Cameron's referendum will never happen. Get 'out of EU' MPs (of whatever party) into Parliament, pass an Act to get out, tear up the treaties which were imposed anyway. Screams from Brussels which can be ignored. Then other European countries do the same as us and we're home and dry.